Skip to main content

Open letter from Isaac Lee to Abraham K. Lee in January 2001

"If anyone thinks he serves God, and does not keep his tongue in check, but deceives his heart, his worship is vain." (James 1:26)
Stuttgart, 06.01.2001
Dear Pastor Abraham,
Thank you for your letter on December 20, 2000. I received it on December 23, but I could not answer immediately because we studied the letter of James last week. All the staff received much grace, orientation and strength through this Bible study. May the Lord bless you and your family rich this year and help you to serve God's good work in Germany!
Dear Pastor Abraham, I'm sorry that you had so much worry and annoyance because of me. In your ten-page letter, you once again showed me my "sin" and called me to repent. The main accusation is that the reform-minded leaders would have gathered without your "permission" and caused the "split" and that the "spiritual order" would have been destroyed. You also mentioned that I or M. Stephan T. Center asked for DM 20,000. Here are some major problems.
First, you assume, of course, that the district leaders are not allowed to gather without their permission and exchange views.We have on the 26th of June. 2000 already discussed in Cologne. M. Kaleb Hong, Peter Chang, Paul Kwon and Stephan Choi were also there. You said such an unofficial gathering was not biblical because there has never been anything like it at UBF. Is it true that everything that is not practiced in UBF is not biblical at the same time? The gospel frees us from the curse of the law and the fear and makes us its priests who serve God without fear in righteousness and holiness (Luke 1: 47, 75). This gospel gives us both freedom of conscience and freedom of assembly. Decisive is the motive and the goal of the respective meetings. How much evil was already decided at the "official" assemblies in church history?
Secondly: in your letter you do not deal with the five reform points that we proposed to you on 26.6.2000, but are mainly about the so-called "spiritual order".This just reveals the essential problem. The spiritual order is not destroyed by the "unofficial" assembly, but by overemphasizing the authority of the leaders. According to Genesis ch. 1, the spiritual order is that God as the Creator is the Supreme, all men are under God, and all other things are subordinate to man. When a servant of God himself obeys the Word of God and acts according to the word of God, he is a good steward of God. But when he claims the absolute authority that only God can claim, he destroys the spiritual order; he becomes a slave to his flesh and causes chaos. A good example is Saul and David. When Saul left his position and sought his own honor, he could no longer control his feelings and has suffered and even killed many innocent people. Around David gathered around 400 people. The spiritual order in Israel was broken not by the "unofficial" assembly of David, but by the pride of Saul.
Likewise, the spiritual order in UBF is not destroyed by the "unofficial" assembly. We already know that M. Samuel C. Lee claims absolute authority. He dropped the head twice in Moscow. He has deposed M. Augustin Song very inhumane. Because of the abuse of his "absolute" authority, many people were wounded in the heart and left the church. Among them were the church leaders who participated in campus evangelism in the US, such as M. Peter Chang in OSU, M. John Shin in New York, and M. James Kim in Toledo.
But the bigger problem is that you simply accept it as the responsible leader for UBF in Germany and even support it. When I learned at the MSU Conference in 1993 how M. Samuel C. Lee with all cunning and threats wanted to get H. Rebekka from UBF Madison to Chicago and marry her to a shepherd, I talked to you about it in Cologne. But you defended the authority of M. Samuel and even praised his determination! When I read your letter, I realize that you are primarily concerned with your authority.
Pastor Abraham, you have read M. Susanna's letter to M. Peter Chang. She described in her letter how her little children were beaten by M. Peter Chang in the name of education and asked to give one of her children as an adoption child. Your concrete presentation seems to me believable. In your letter, you said that we had gathered in Siegen and helped that family write the letter of accusation against M. Peter Chang. That's not true at all. You know that M. Peter has neither asked her forgiveness nor given any detailed information. I do not think it's right of you to simply ignore the desire of M. Susanna for righteousness.
I also see this problem with M. Kaleb Hong in HD. When I visited him in July 2000 at his invitation and discussed with him for 6 hours, he always defended the authority of "the Servant of God." He used three people as an example: Miriam, who became a leper, David, who had honored Saul despite his weakness, and Hanania and Sapira, who had been killed because of their hypocrisy. He said that the "servant of God" even had an authority over life and death. For him, the authority of God's servant would be sacred and inviolable. Finally, because of Gen.12.2.3, M. Caleb asks me to be on the side of M. Samuel, for as everyone in Abraham is blessed, one is blessed to be on the side of the "lawful" ("Orthodox", Korean: " Jeong Tong "). He added, that all will go down regardless of the number if they are not on the right side. I then asked him whether Luther or the Pope was the "lawful". He said that Luther was the "lawful" because his view was biblical. I then asked him what was biblical, whether anyone, regardless of position, admitted his mistakes and repented, or punished anyone who showed him his faults. I told him that David had been blessed by God because, despite his high position, he had repented for his sin, while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant. if they are not on the "lawful" side. I then asked him whether Luther or the Pope was the "lawful". He said that Luther was the "lawful" because his view was biblical. I then asked him what was biblical, whether anyone, regardless of position, admitted his mistakes and repented, or punished anyone who showed him his faults. I told him that David had been blessed by God because, despite his high position, he had repented for his sin, while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant. if they are not on the "lawful" side. I then asked him whether Luther or the Pope was the "lawful". He said that Luther was the "lawful" because his view was biblical. I then asked him what was biblical, whether anyone, regardless of position, admitted his mistakes and repented, or punished anyone who showed him his faults. I told him that David had been blessed by God because, despite his high position, he had repented for his sin, while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant. whether Luther or the Pope is the "lawful". He said that Luther was the "lawful" because his view was biblical. I then asked him what was biblical, whether anyone, regardless of position, admitted his mistakes and repented, or punished anyone who showed him his faults. I told him that David had been blessed by God because, despite his high position, he had repented for his sin, while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant. whether Luther or the Pope is the "lawful". He said that Luther was the "lawful" because his view was biblical. I then asked him what was biblical, whether anyone, regardless of position, admitted his mistakes and repented, or punished anyone who showed him his faults. I told him that David had been blessed by God because, despite his high position, he had repented for his sin, while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant. whether someone, regardless of his position, admits his mistakes and repents, or punishes anyone who shows him his faults. I told him that David had been blessed by God because, despite his high position, he had repented for his sin, while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant. whether someone, regardless of his position, admits his mistakes and repents, or punishes anyone who shows him his faults. I told him that David had been blessed by God because, despite his high position, he had repented for his sin, while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant. while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant. while Saul remained impenitent until the end. I pay attention to M. Kaleb Hong. He is an honest man and one of my friends who have been with me in my misery. But I can not share his view of the authority of God's servant.
Thirdly, you imply that M. Stephan and I intended the division of the UBF from the beginning and systematically carried it out. Why should I want the split in UBF? I want the whole UBF community renewed according to Scripture. If UBF split, many missionaries would become homeless. Certainly many shepherds will be hurt too. But you have always emphasized that the work of God is the work of those left and that you are not ready to compromise. I, M. Stephan and all the other reform missionaries want the same thing - the renewal of the whole UBF community.
Fourth, your letter also shows your inconsistent attitude towards truth.
You will certainly agree that all people should repent if they have sinned seriously. But when it comes to M. Samuel, you defend him by all means. When M. Peter Chang sent a circular letter to the leaders of the UBF in OSU in 1991 and announced his reform concerns, you condemned him as a haughty and ungrateful. In 1994, M. James Kim also communicated his reform concerns through a newsletter, publicly criticizing M. Samuel C. Lee. You have sentenced him even harder. Here I will not go into their reform concerns, because they are almost identical in content to the current reform concerns.
In the spring of 1994, there was a commotion in the municipality of Cologne. You were afraid of M. Samuel's hard action. Therefore, you gathered the older employees in Cologne and poured out your heart and said that you actually find the allegations and criticism of M. Samuel of M. James Kim in Toledo and Peter Chang in OSU right and that they were unfairly excluded and that you too would become like them. You asked the older employees for their support if anything wrong happened to him through M. Samuel C. Lee. M. Lukas Kwon is a witness to that. However, after you came back from the USA after training in Chicago, you revered M. Samuel C. Lee even more. In the summer of 1996 I was in Korea. In Korea, I learned that the meeting of the senior shepherds was talking about the change of direction in Germany. I had it confirmed by the three senior shepherds as a fact. Then I said to H. John Jun that I did not like it. I returned to Germany one week earlier than planned to attend the district leadership conference. At the conference, I told you. Then you thanked me for my confidence in you and said that you consider M. Peter Chang and M. James Kim to be just and that they have been unfairly excluded from the community and that you are also in Korea would have noticed through the conversation with H. Mark Yang. In the evening, I assembled the district leaders without you and asked them for their honest opinion on the change of leadership in Germany. Everyone agreed that you should continue to act as the leader in Germany. Then we sent a fax to Korea by M. Kaleb asking that you stay on the line. So this plan of change of direction was prevented. What I wanted to say here is your inconsistent attitude towards the truth.
At the district head conference in Rehe (6th Sep 2000) I asked you to show the reasons for the discipline for me and M. Stephan. Here's what you said as two points of my "sin." The first sin was that I studied theology without your permission. You said that you had heard from the staff in Stuttgart by phone that I am studying theology. That's not true, because I and other senior missionaries had fellowships once a month after the meeting. From time to time I have shared with the community what I learned at the lecture. And you also told me what you learned during the theological lecture on the sermon at the university in Wurpertal. But at the head conference in Rehe you denied it. First, When I reminded you of your word about the sermon lecture, you admitted it by saying, "I only studied six months." My second "sin" would be the unofficial assembly. Why did not you mention this first "sin" in your letter? Is not it because you basically do not consider it "sin"? We Christians should not ask first what it brings us, but what the truth is, even if it only brings us losses. If we do not tell the truth and say something different according to the situation, our service to God is in vain (James 1:26). because you basically do not consider it "sin"? We Christians should not ask first what it brings us, but what the truth is, even if it only brings us losses. If we do not tell the truth and say something different according to the situation, our service to God is in vain (James 1:26). because you basically do not consider it "sin"? We Christians should not ask first what it brings us, but what the truth is, even if it only brings us losses. If we do not tell the truth and say something different according to the situation, our service to God is in vain (James 1:26).
Fifth: You mentioned in your letter that I or M. Stephan of T. Center had demanded DM 20,000.I did not ask for support from either T. Center or C. Center. Where did you get that information? Please tell the source of this information and apologize publicly for this false slander! When 9 shepherds left my parish in 1997, we were in great financial need. Nevertheless, I did not ask for any support in Korea. Some centers in Germany have supported us for a year with a total of about 600-700 DM per month, including UBF HD. I am very thankful for that. In such a difficult time (November 1997), you called M. Johannes Kim, who was then an intern missionary in Stuttgart, and criticized me for not having a firm calling. You asked him to report directly to him from then on what happened in Stuttgart and promised him indirectly,
Sixth, you overlook the need for reform at UBF in history. When you read your letter, you get the impression that everything is fine and that the reform missionaries are the "troublemakers" or "raging wolves", as M. Kaleb Hong called the reform herders.
But that's not true. The proof of this is the history of the development of UBFs. The 7 senior shepherds who started the reform movement in 1976 were not the "rebels", as M. Samuel C. Lee calls them. They were honest reformers who risked their lives for the renewal of the church. Unfortunately, her concern was not taken very seriously. Nevertheless, this had the consequence that M. Samuel C. Lee went to Chicago and that UBF could grow in Korea under the direction of H. John Jun. Around 1990, some district leaders in the United States tried to renew the church. But this attempt also failed. Why did these two reform movements fail? The reason is simple. Because many people have only selfishly watched them. Now UBF is 40 years old. The reform movement in Korea 2000 is the third movement. This time, everyone should support this movement and renew the entire community UBF worldwide. You said in your letter that I and other reform missionaries would join because we were from the provinces. No. With regard to historical development, a reform in UBF is necessary. That is my conviction and also by the Reform Missionaries. I pray that I can leave my children a church where life can flourish and pride themselves. That is my conviction and also by the Reform Missionaries. I pray that I can leave my children a church where life can flourish and pride themselves. That is my conviction and also by the Reform Missionaries. I pray that I can leave my children a community where life can flourish and pride themselves.
You also wrote that the reform must begin with oneself. I agree with you on this point. Reform must begin with the reformers and their own communities. But that does not mean that we should just watch how many become victims of the abuse of "absolute" authority. We are all connected in Jesus Christ. We carry worldwide responsibility. Without global renewal, our reform will have its limits in a single community.
Seventh: You have no great awareness of the problem of reform in the present. UBF has many strengths, and God has preciously needed them for campus and world mission. The two bible study, the disciples education, the zeal for the salvation of the soul, the world mission by the lay missionaries and the cordial familial community etc. are the strength of UBF. But we must not keep silent about the mistakes we made and the weakness we still have.
I myself made many mistakes at the beginning of my missionary life. I have often trained the shepherds inhumanly. Jesus has repeatedly taught that a soul is more precious than the whole world. Who wants to be the first, should be the last. The leader is a servant. Domination is servantship. But my fallen being wanted to exercise power. In doing so, I have hurt many mentally. God loved me so much that in 1997 he trained me through the unrest in the church. Senior missionaries have discussed much with H. Xaver, H. Christian and H. Thomas. They said everything I did wrong. Her main criticism was the authoritarian leadership style in me and in UBF. I admitted my mistakes and promised the renewal of my inner attitude and so the renewal of the church. But they doubted the renewal of the church. For an important reason of the criticism was that M. Samuel had led the summer Bible conference in De Bron of 1994 very authoritarian. At that time H. Christoph Gronbach had prepared a sermon in Stuttgart. But one week before the conference, the preacher was changed. The Stuttgart choir had prepared a song. The choir was asked four times forward, but it was canceled shortly before the performance. They also found in UBF Newsletter that M. Samuel in his 30-year history of UBF had proudly reported his inhuman training methods that he had used previously. Therefore, they felt that they are complicit and the renewal of the church has a limit, as long as the structure of the UBF remains the same. So left the family Xaver and Christian UBF. With them went 5 other shepherds. I do not want to justify my mistakes. First and foremost, I am responsible for leaving the community. Their abandonment caused me great pain. The pain was so great that for a very long time I was paralyzed. But by the grace of God I could be set up again. In this time of temptation, I could understand the gospel and the love of Jesus new and deeper, and also experience the power of the word and somewhat renew my mind. Above all, I am grateful that my loyal colleagues have stood by me. We pray a lot for inner growth and we are very concerned about it. Organizationally, the community is renewed. We have a new statute since 1.1.2000 containing all reform points. According to the statute, 4 groups and 12 circles were formed. Three major task departments have been created (Bible Study Service Bible Retreat, Mission Training Information, Administration Cash). Each department will work independently and creatively using their gifts.
Dear Pastor Abraham, we know that many shepherds and missionaries have left our church. So far we have often blamed them. But we have to admit that we are guilty and that we have reached the certain limit. Although we serve more than 20 years of the mission to Germany, we have set up only one German Shepherd to community leaders. As the European missionaries evangelized Korea, within 10 years they set up community leaders (according to the Nevius method) to many Korean laypeople. I admit that it is different here than in Korea. While we should preserve our strength and work purposefully for the campus mission, in many ways we should rethink and preach, study the bible, train the missionaries and shepherds, the formation of full-time shepherds, etc. continue to research and develop. If we do not rethink and continue to insist only in the old system and thinking, we can not, in my opinion, turn Germany into a priestly nation. I do not want to crash you. What I want is the renewal of the entire UBF community, so that UBF is preciously used by God in this 21st of july and our prayer request for 10,000 Bible Teachers is fulfilled!
Dear Pastor Abraham, I hope you understand that both personal reform and community reform are needed worldwide. I wish you God's abundant blessing. Greetings to M. Sara. I am a debtor of her love and her prayer. By the way, I will publish this letter because you published your letter to me everywhere and accused me.
Joined in Jesus Christ is 
your Isaac Lee

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Forward with the reform!

M. Stephan Choe (Bochum), 21. Febr. 2001I want to report here on my previous attempts to persuade personal discussions with Father Abraham Lee to reform. I will also report on the many conversations with M. Kaleb Hong (Heidelberg), although one can already find out in my earlier presentation "Cause, Course and Perspective of the UBF Germany Reform Movement" of Dec. 22, 2000, how the talks of the five Senior Leader of the UBF Germany since his years, especially last year, had run over the need of reform problems. My open letter to Father Abraham Lee and Isaac Lee may serve as additions. Since his years there have been intensive discussions and fierce arguments about the problems that need to be reformed among the Five, because after the leadership meeting in Cologne they spent an extra night there and had time to talk about God's work. If an unjust action was committed by M. Samuel Lee, as in the deposition of M. Peter Chang (Columbus, USA) or James Kim (Toledo), there wer…

Open letter from Stephan Choe to Abraham K. Lee from December 2000

"Therefore, who hears this my speech and does it, is like a wise man who built his house on rock." (Mt 7:24)

Bochum, Dec. 26, 2000
Dear Pastor Abraham Lee, I have received your letter of Dec. 20, 2000 well. Thank you first for your patience with me in the last 22 years and for your love for me. However, I have realized that it is necessary for me to reiterate the essential reform concerns. Not marginal problems, but core problems should be properly treated and solved in the light of the Bible, so that the reform of UBF Germany would be done properly and God glorified. I visited you on Wednesday, December 13, 2000 to find a way to overcome the crisis of UBF Germany. We spoke for two and a half hours in the center of Cologne for two. That day, at the beginning of the conversation, I asked you how you would like to solve the crisis. Since you answered, that you did not change your initial opinion You said that you did not haul punishment on me and Isaac Lee, but asked only for rep…